Home › Forums › AWS › AWS Certified Developer Associate › Review mode question 5 confusing explanation and correct answer
-
Review mode question 5 confusing explanation and correct answer
-
The question
A multinational e-commerce company hosts its product descriptions on an Amazon RDS database. All descriptions are originally written in English. Users can request on-demand translations via a Lambda function, which pulls the description and employs Amazon Translate’s TranslateText API for the task. However, during sales of popular products, the surge in translation requests is stressing the RDS, causing increased response times.
How can a developer improve the Lambda function’s response time in the most cost-effective manner without doing database optimizations?
The correct answer was to use the /tmp folder , I hesitated about that though it is cost-effective but it is not effective as I wouldn’t store api responses in very limited space up to 512 mb and it is not shared across different Lambda invocations. This would not be effective for a large number of concurrent requests and may lead to cache misses(I’m sure it would be so many requests in multinational e-commerce company site). Although elasticache is less cost-effective than /tmp but it’s generally more effective approach. With Redis you won’t make any database optimizations, you wouldn’t need to touch RDS or what you meant about database optimization?
The explanation about why redis was an incorrect answer just not fit with the question and it looks like it should have been another text here . DAX Dynamodb accelerator doesn’t have any use with RDS -
Hello Valentine Serebreanu,
Good day!
Thank you for your valuable feedback!
We sincerely apologize for the confusion caused by the original question. As you correctly pointed out, DAX is unsuitable for this scenario, as it is specifically designed to accelerate Amazon DynamoDB queries and not improve RDS-based workloads. The question aimed to focus on improving the Lambda function’s response time most cost-effectively without touching the underlying RDS database.
You are right that ElastiCache could have been a more effective solution for caching, as it supports caching results for faster retrieval across multiple Lambda invocations. However, the question was deliberately focused on how Lambda itself could be optimized without introducing other services like ElastiCache that could increase complexity or cost. We intentionally avoided database optimizations and additional managed services to keep the solution as cost-effective as possible.
We have corrected the question to reflect the proper context and options. Again, we appreciate your detailed feedback and hope this resolves the confusion!
Regards,
Neil @ tutorials dojo
Log in to reply.